NOLA Rugby Enterprises, LLC et al v. K&K Insurance Group, Inc. et al, No. 2:2022cv04206 - Document 10 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 12/08/2022. (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOLA Rugby Enterprises, LLC et al v. K&K Insurance Group, Inc. et al Doc. 10 Case 2:22-cv-04206-BWA-MBN Document 10 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CIVIL ACTION NOLA RUGBY ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. NO. 22-4206 VERSUS SECTION M (5) K&K INSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al. ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim filed by defendants Engle Martin & Associates, LLC (“Engle Martin”) and K&K Insurance Group, Inc. (“K&K”).1 The motion was set for submission on December 15, 2022.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, making the deadline in this instance to be December 7, 2022. Plaintiffs NOLA Rugby Enterprises, LLC and Major League Rugby, LLC (together, “Plaintiffs”), who are represented by counsel, did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed and appears to have merit,3 1 R. Doc. 9. R. Doc. 9-2. 3 This case involves an insurance-coverage dispute. Plaintiffs own property located in Metairie, Louisiana, that allegedly sustained wind damage as a result of Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3-4. At the time of the storm, the property was covered by an insurance policy that was underwritten by defendant National Casualty Insurance Company (“National Casualty”). Id. at 7. Although Plaintiffs allege that K&K and National Casualty “provided coverage,” K&K was not an insurer but actually an intermediate insurance broker that procured the National Casualty policy. Id. at 8; R. Doc. 9-1 at 2. And Engle Martin was an independent insurance adjustor hired by National Casualty to assist in the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. R. Doc. 9-1 at 1. In their complaints, Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty against K&K and Engle Martin. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3-10. K&K and Engle Martin move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them, arguing that they were not parties to the insurance contract and cannot be held liable for bad faith penalties or breach of fiduciary duty. R. Doc. 9-1 at 1-2. With respect to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against K&K and Engle Martin, the Fifth Circuit has held that a party cannot be liable for breach of a contract to which it is not a party. Willow Bend, L.L.C. v. Downtown ABQ Partners, L.L.C., 612 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2010). Neither K&K nor Engle Martin was a party to the insurance contract and there is no evidence of any other contract between either of these entities and Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs’ 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-04206-BWA-MBN Document 10 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 2 IT IS ORDERED that Engle Martin and K&K’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims against them are DISMISSED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of December, 2022. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE breach of contract claims against K&K and Engle Martin must be dismissed. Further, only an insurer can be held liable under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes. See La. R.S. 22:1892, :1973. Because neither K&K nor Engle Martin is an insurer, Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims against them must be dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ claim that Engle Martin failed to timely adjust Plaintiffs’ insurance claim must be dismissed because an insurance adjustor, as the disclosed agent of the insurer, owes no duty to advise the insured on coverage issues. Rich v. Bud’s Boat Rentals, Inc., 1997 WL 785668, at *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 18, 1997) (collecting cases). Finally, Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim against K&K must be dismissed because K&K was an intermediary insurance broker that did not have a direct relationship with Plaintiffs and thus could not have acted as their fiduciary. See Nguyen v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2007 WL 647307, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 27, 2002) (collecting cases). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
